![\"Zilinsko](\"https:\/\/archmuziejus.lt\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Zilinsko-galerija.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAuthor Gytis Or\u017eikauskas<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>According to Roman mythology, a ‘genius’ is the divine nature that comes into every individual person at birth, containing the entire potential of that person’s fate. In architectural theory the concept of ‘genius’ is used to talk about the scale of an architect’s creative potential, i.e. ‘ingenuity’, or the immaterial artistic (content) qualities of architecture, such as the ‘genius loci’ category. In any case, we all can agree that the architectural ‘spirit’ is related to its artistic potential and the unique ability of the artist (the architect) to actualise it as a piece of art, which distinguishes architecture from the general utilitarian construction. Nevertheless, despite the general simple understanding, it is not that easy to ‘grasp’ the artistic foundation of architecture, as it might seem. The categories of architectural artistry and uniqueness are often subject to discussions regarding architectural quality in Lithuania \u2013 there were even attempts to include these concepts into the legislation on architectural quality. The Description of the Architectural Policy Directions of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania in 2005, indicates the necessity to distribute knowledge on artistry<\/em> and aesthetics as the major conditions and perspectives of the living environment. The document also indicates the goal of cherishing the uniqueness<\/em> of the Lithuanian architecture, as well as improving its quality at national level by providing strategic support to architect associations and scientific institutions.[1]<\/a> In turn, the Law on Architecture of the Republic of Lithuania, approved in 2017, states that the purpose of the law is to preserve and create a sustainable environment of enduring value that has unique<\/em> characteristics of the local culture[2]<\/a>. These documents declare artistry and uniqueness as desirable criteria of architectural quality, but the legislation (no doubt) does not officially elaborate on the meaning of these concepts.<\/p>\n The artistic suggestion of architecture could be related to the ability of the artistic audience to perceive the categories that do not exist in the artistic objects, but are rather an image of the observer’s consciousness. No piece of architecture is ‘static’, ‘dynamic’, ‘modest’ or ‘extravagant’ by itself \u2013 these categories are applied to a piece of art by the observer. The major works, dedicated to the nature of architecture, are dedicated to the assessment of the following categories of creative imagination[3]<\/a>: compositional integrity, symmetry and asymmetry, static or dynamic nature, rhythm, proportions and scale, texture, [4]<\/a> light and colour[5]<\/a>. These are the books Architekt\u016bra: stiliai, kompozicija, men\u0173 s\u0105veika [Architecture: Styles, Composition, Interaction of Art]<\/em> by the architect and architectural theorist Algimantas Ma\u010diulis (b. 1931), Harmonija architekt\u016broje: proporcijos ir mastelis [Harmony in Architecture: Proportions and Scale]<\/em>[6]<\/a> by the art critic Prof Juozas Palaima, Forma architekt\u016broje [Shapes in Architecture]<\/em> by the architect and architectural theorist Edmundas Stasiulis (b. 1943), as well as Architekt\u016bros kompozicijos tyrimai: mokslini\u0173 straipsni\u0173 rinkinys [Research on Architectural Composition: a Collection of Academic Articles]<\/em>[7]<\/a>, published by the Faculty of Architecture of Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. However, the categories of creative imagination, used to explain the artistic nature of architecture, are, in essence, condition. For example, in his book A. Ma\u010diulis has illustrated the concept of dynamic architecture with Vilnius Funeral Home (architect \u010ceslovas Maz\u016bras, 1975-1987)[8]<\/a>, yet, compared to contemporary buildings of deconstructivist architecture, that building does not seem dynamic any more. Such examples show that the categories of creative imagination are sufficiently subjective, because in essence they depend on the context that the architecture is assessed in. Such subjective basis of explanation enables the emergence of radical opinions. This allows assuming that any result of planning and construction should be regarded as a piece of art or a culturally significant object[9]<\/a>. This idea is a valid in the context of pansemiotic aesthetics theory, stating that everything (the world and its objects) carry meanings as signifiers[10]<\/a>. However, in practice we may engage in architectural theory and critics even acknowledging that pure and objective categories for the assessment of architecture don’t actually exist. This does not prevent us from making our assessments: there are no criteria to assess, which movie is objectively the best, yet movie awards take place every year[11]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Other Lithuanian academic works are focused on the category of architectural identity. Such research principle protects from a subjective attitude, because the stylistic architectural trends are defined by a general and objective agreement. The concept of ‘artistic expression’ in A. Ma\u010diulis’ dissertation on ‘\u0160iuolaikin\u0117s architekt\u016bros menin\u0117s rai\u0161kos tendencijos’ [Trends of artistic expression in contemporary architecture] is defined as ‘the entirety of artistic means, indicating the style or trend of an object’[12]<\/a>. A series of articles ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: regionalizmas’ [20th c. Architecture: Regionalism][13]<\/a>, ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: istorizmas’ [20th c. Architecture: Historicism][14]<\/a> and ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: iracionalizmas’ [20th c. Architecture: Irrationalism][15]<\/a> by Prof Rimantas Buivydas (1945-2017) was dedicated to individual architectural tendencies, rather than styles. However, probably the only academic work, directly focusing on architectural individuality is the article ‘Savitumas kaip vertyb\u0117 architekt\u016broje’ [Individuality as an Architectural Value] by Aist\u0117 Andriu\u0161yt\u0117. This article researches the interaction between two architectural categories: individuality and contextuality. The research concludes that the combination of the two enables to adapt to the environment preserving one’s individuality[16]<\/a>. Nevertheless, individuality-based architectural research could miss particularly exceptional creators of architecture, who do not fit into any predominating context, e.g. such sui generis<\/em> architects as Friedensreich Hundertwasser (1928\u20132000). It is possible to ‘miss’ an entire line of tendencies, e.g. in his book Space, Time and Architecture<\/em>, published in 1941, the influential architectural critic and historian Sigried Giedion (1888\u20131968) rejected the expressionist architecture of the first half of the 20th c. as ‘inadequate’, because it didn’t fit the universally accepted ideas of functionalism[17]<\/a>. The architectural tendency ‘missed’ in Lithuania was the Streamline Moderne<\/em>[18]<\/a>, which includes the majority of modern architecture in Kaunas from the interwar period. Despite the obvious signs of Streamline Moderne<\/em> aesthetics \u2013 round nautical windows and horizontal ship-like rails, rounded corners and corner windows that remind of the industrial design of the 1930s, Kaunas’ interwar architecture had often been regarded as something that has ‘failed to reach pure modernism (or avant-gardism)’, subject to creative stagnation, etc. [19]<\/a> So far the works on architectural history and theory mostly ignore architecture that does not fit the general frame of typology, chronology, style or trend, e.g. sui generi<\/em>s architecture or generated by several architects, representing several stylistic periods \u2013 no matter how unique it was. In general case the majority of researchers focus on buildings that illustrate general tendencies, reflect the formulated narrative and are identical with their artistic context, instead of being exceptionally individual.<\/p>\n Limited interpretation of the artistic potential of architecture forces to look for alternative research models, untied from subjective narratives, theory of stylistic progress and formal explanations of architectural qualities. Contemporary aesthetics theory highlights the viewer’s relation with a piece of art, when the process of ‘artistification’ focuses not only on the inspired creator, but also the artistic audience. According to this theory, the process of an object’s ‘artistification’ involves its relation with the audience because art acts as a signifier. The expression of signifier systems is inseparable from social communication. For example, earlier the perception of architecture used to be directly related with subjective experience. German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900\u20132002) said that ‘[a building] turns into a piece of art, when its constant use manifests in something beautiful, just like in everything else that is beautiful. This experience makes us stop in the middle of our purposeful action \u2013 for example, in a church or on a stairway \u2013 and we just stand there, feeling hypnotised’[20]<\/a>.<\/p>\n We’ve all had that sense of marvel, caused by architecture, but it’s impossible to communicate that experience to other people. We can imagine that someone else could experience the same sense of marvel, but there are no ‘telepathic’ ways to check, if the experience of different individuals is equal or equivalent. In order to draw an objective opinion about architectural values, we must agree on it, which means that the artistic experience of architecture must be transformed into means of communication, i.e. a language used by architectural criticism and theory. That is no coincidence that three major authors, who talked about the category of architecture’s artistic expression did that from the linguistic perspective. These were the semioticians Jan Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd (1891\u20131975), Christian Norberg-Schultz (1926\u20132000) and Donald Preziosi (b. 1941). The ideas of these authors could be combined into a single theoretical model of architectural research.<\/p>\n Research model for the categories of architectural individuality and artistic suggestion<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Architectural criticism and theory operates in linguistic forms. The general aesthetics theory states that although perceived phenomena are interpreted using language, this circumstance does not turn the interpreted objects into linguistic formations. This concept does not imply an attitude to phenomena as symbolic or linguistic reality. The expression of signifier systems is simply inseparable from social communication.[21]<\/a> Three major researchers, who researched architecture’s artistic suggestion and compared the individual experience of the architectural audience with objective (‘linguistic’) categories were the semioticians Ch. Norberg-Schultz, J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd and D. Preziosi (see Fig. 1). In the second half of the 20th c. architectural studies took place at the time as modernism trends. For this reason this study was focused on actualised function of architecture. In spite of that, it involved searching for purposes of artistic suggestion, which supplement the utilitarian function of architecture.<\/p>\n In his book Intentions in Architecture<\/em> (1965), the Norwegian architect and theorist Ch. Norberg-Schultz wrote about the function of architecture, stating that the function of architecture is both practical (necessity) and artistic. Architecture is able to create an interim object, which invokes reactions in the society. The fact that architecture is both needed and artistic, is determined by the fact that its purposes consist of cognitive, emotional and assessment elements. Architecture is not purely cognitive, since it does not give knowledge, but rather contribute to the order of the surrounding environment. It is also not purely emotional, because it doesn’t entertain us, yet it is a source of both admiration and discontent. Architecture is also not a part of an assessment, because it does not define the rules of our behaviour. In spite of that, it contributes to our social and cultural norms. Architecture is a purely synthetic activity, adapting to the forms of life in all aspects. This adaptation does not require for each piece [of architecture] to comply with the whole. A unique work specifies secondary values, but since it belongs to an architectural system, it contributes to the general specification. New specifications cannot imitate the past or completely destroy the ties with the tradition. They depend on the existing systems of symbols that can be developed[22]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Czech aesthetics theorist and semioticist J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd has defined the major ‘horizons’ of architectural purposes \u2013 the direct practical function, historical function (defining, what is the relation of the building with the constructions of the past), social function (which relates to the social status and economic resources of the builder), as well as individual function (which is related to the building’s individual style)[23]<\/a>. Similar research has been conducted by the US art historian and semioticist D. Preziosi. The author has highlighted the referential architectural purpose of the context, i.e. puts the use and five other functions of architecture: 1) aesthetic function (which is naturally related with the type of the building); 2) emotional or expressive orientation (which manifests in geometric or spatial features, the use of characteristic materials, colours and textures, standards of use or appropriation); 3) connotational purpose (which encourages or creates movement in space); 4) phatic or ‘territorial’ function (which conveys the information on the community and identity of social groups); 5) metacode (which defines the relation of the building with the architectural forms, created in the past, ranging from detailed reconstruction to simulations or transformations)[24]<\/a>.<\/p>\n The semiotic theories of this author trio could be compared to the thoughts of the US architectural historian and theorist Charles Jencks (b. 1939). According to the author, architectural forms should be examined from several perspectives: the social-physical context (how important is the space, where the object was built), semantics, syntax and connotations[25]<\/a>. However, Ch. Jencks applied these categories only for historical style interpretations. Completely innovative architecture, however, was analysed using a principle that equals to the concept of pareidolia. In his book The Language of Post-Modern Architecture<\/em> Ch. Jencks used illustrations of the US architect and architectural theorist Robert Venturi (b. 1925), where well-known buildings of innovative architecture were transformed into imaginary shapes. Thus Sydney Opera House (architect J\u00f8rn Utzon, 1957\u20131973) revealed as an orgy of mating tortoises, Ronchamp Notre Dame du Haut chapel (architect Le Corbusier, 1951\u20131955) looks like a head cover of a French nun, a duck, a steamboat, grotesque torsos or palms, the Pacific Design Centre (architect C\u00e9sar Pelli, 1975) revealed as sliced sausage, a lying skyscraper or a classic entablature, an airship hangar, an elongated cash register, etc.[26]<\/a> This method cannot be used to support architectural artistic suggestion studies, because the author has described images that were determined by his own personal experience. These images cannot be converted into general categories of artistic suggestion \u2013 architecture that raises personal associations cannot be regarded as more artistically suggestive than architecture, which does not. Therefore, we could say that architectural assessment requires objective interpretation of signifiers so that architectural criticism and theory could operate at comparatively objective categories (as it was already mentioned, purely objective assessment categories simply do not exist).<\/p>\n Objective artistic signifiers were subject to late 20th c. art semiotics and semantics studies by the German researchers Rolf Duro (1937-2000) and G\u00fcnther Kerner. The study of artistic signifiers of R. Duroy and G. Kerner is based on three general categories \u2013 pragmatics (signifiers are focused on a specific goal), syntactics (signifiers are understandable and have a specific form) and semantics (signifiers are informative). The syntactic form element defines the quality of the form \u2013 (round, angular, etc.), boundaries (sharp, with clear boundaries, etc.), dimension (line, volume, etc.), quantity (large, small, etc.) and realisation (genre or technique). From pragmatic perspective, artistic signifiers can be indicative (referencing to intellect, often simple and easy-to-remember), suggestive (affecting one’s feelings, often used in advertising) and imperative (affecting one’s will, often used in totalitarian systems). According to the authors, an individual field of semiotics \u2013 sigmatics \u2013 studies the relation of artistic signifiers with the marked object. This relation manifests as an icon, index or a symbol. An icon is directly related to the object that it shows. Index marks represent an empirical field, defined in space and time, but indicate only object positions in relation to these categories. For example, in terms of time, art could be attributed to innovation or redundancy. Based on values, the priority could be given to the signifiers of the past (historicism), present (contemporary art) or future (futurism). Symbols do not operate the visual dependancy on the objects, depicted in art, but could be based on objective categories, such as feeling warmth in red and orange shades, as well as contrary reactions to blues and greens[27]<\/a>. R. Duroy and G. Kerner have not adapted this method of semiotic analysis in architecture, but used it for the analysis of a monument to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in Braunschweig, Germany (sculptor Ernst Friedrich August Rietschel, 1853). Although sigmatically the sculpture is rather iconic (the litterateur is depicted in a realistic manner), the authors have identified this monument as an index mark to signify the city’s local spirit and actualise it in the present. In terms of time, the monument complies with the repertoire of historicism[28]<\/a>. Since these categories can be used to assess the arrangement of the city’s public squares, we could say that it is also valid in studying architecture.<\/p>\n Most interestingly, the ideas of all of the above-mentioned authors supplement each other and could be united into a single theoretical model for architectural research (see Fig. 2). Three major researchers \u2013 J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd, D. Preziosi and Ch. Norberg-Schultz \u2013 agreed that the artistic purpose of architecture is combined with its practical function. In essence, all of the authors talked about the dependency of architecture on location[29]<\/a>, time[30]<\/a> and social cultural context[31]<\/a>. These three categories could be regarded as an element of architectural assessment (described by Ch. Norberg-Schultz) \u2013 these are objective and jointly agreed categories, in the context of which we assess the artistic suggestion of architecture. The individuality of architecture could be analysed according to two other elements \u2013 emotional and cognitive element. The emotional element includes architecture’s individual purpose (described by J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd) and emotional (expressive) purpose (described by D. Preziosi). This element is related to the emotional impression of the audience, which not necessarily may be constructed by the architect on purpose. The cognitive element of architecture may be identified with a connotative function (described by D. Preziosi). It is related to the sequence of the audience’s architectural experience, which is often purposefully planned by the architect in advance. This architectural element has been widely studied by other authors \u2013 the British architecture experts Sophia Psarra (who referred to this category as architecture’s ‘spatial narrative’)[32]<\/a> and Flora Samuel (who analysed the works of the Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier)[33]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Using the theoretical model to analyse a specific example<\/strong><\/p>\n The efficiency assessment of the theoretical model can be done by studying a specific architectural object \u2013 the building of Mykolas \u017dilinskas Picture Gallery in Independence (former Stained Glass) Square in Kaunas (architects Saulius Ju\u0161kys, K\u0119stutis Kisielius, Eugenijus Mili\u016bnas, interior architect Nona Maurukait\u0117, 1981-1989 [34]<\/a>). In 1982 Kaunas Department of the Urban Construction Design Institute organised a tender for the architectural project of the Picture Gallery and the winner of the tender has been implemented until 1989. The architecture of the Gallery could be analysed according to the categories of social cultural, time and space context. In terms of social cultural context, Mykolas \u017dilinskas Art Gallery marks a turning point, when the thaw of the Soviet Era enabled the emergence of new ideas and influences. The trends of post-modern architecture, which came from the West, were regarded rather suspiciously. Algimantas Alekna, Chairman of the Commission for Exhibitions of the Architects’ Association of the Lithuanian SSR, said that ‘Our young architects, very quick to embrace all the novelties and extravagance, rushed to study post-modern architecture and imitate some of the details or motifs found in magazines in their own projects. … With no denial that getting to know the latest foreign architectural trends is necessary for broadening one’s horizons, I suggest the young ones to be more careful in applying the achievements of their studies in their projects and search for their own individual way, without forgetting that our architecture remains in the stage of modernism.’ Nevertheless, A. Alekna also said that M. \u017dilinskas Gallery was ‘One of the most interesting projects of recent years … The complex urban environment suggested the authors an original interior composition, implemented on the exterior using modest measures.’[35]<\/a> In terms of location context, M. \u017dilinskas Picture Gallery is a complete opposite of the prevailing urban structure and style of the surrounding buildings \u2013 instead of being oriented according to the perimeter of the plot, the entire building is oriented diagonally against the corner of the square, while the fa\u00e7ades, decorated with small details create a contrast with the smooth windowless planes of the fa\u00e7ade walls. Although the architecture of the Picture Gallery is based on connotations of the past like the surrounding buildings of historicism style, it should be regarded as a radically opposing its environment. From this perspective the building’s architecture conveys a rebellious attitude to its surrounding context. In terms of the context of time, the building’s expression is rather ambiguous \u2013 neither retrospective, nor innovative. This fact was confirmed by the architects themselves, stating that they: ‘did not attempt to copy any styles of the past or focus only on avant-garde architecture. The purpose was to find the least time-dependent means of composition that could signify the eternity of art without highlighting anything in the long history of architecture.’[36]<\/a><\/p>\n In terms of expressive (emotional) element, the individual style of the building is based on a modest, ‘dimmed’ expression. Thus the visitor is dissociated from the pomp, characteristic to the official architecture, which emphasizes the predominating authority \u2013 e.g. the St Michael the Archangel (Garrison) Church (a.k.a. Soboras). In the need to touch the emotional strings of the audience, the gallery was decorated using luxurious natural materials (natural stone, brass, rolled metal), which create an impression of elevation. According to the authors, green shades of the interior should be associated with the Lithuanian spirit[37]<\/a>. The direct means of creating an impression of elevation is raising the building above the level of the square[38]<\/a>.<\/p>\n In terms of cognitive element (spatial narrative) the building’s expression is created as an opposition to the church, standing in the same square. The church was built in the 1.6 km axis, which is currently the Freedom Avenue as a symbol of the Tsarist government, well-visible from a large distance and the slopes of \u017daliakalnis neighbourhood. Differently from the church, the building of the gallery is as if purposefully hidden from the visitor’s field of vision (see Fig. 3). According to the project authors: ‘This relation between the imagined volume must be the major artistic factor of tension. The Picture Gallery rises gradually. At first we notice calm and laconic volumes that shape the square, with the sculpture being the predominating symbol in the background. As we ascend the stairs, marking the perimeter of the Stained Glass Square, the building of the Picture Gallery gradually becomes the dominating object. Being in a semi-closed yard makes one feel like standing in the gallery, in front of the main entrance pediment. It is almost invisible from the Stained Glass Square, only sometimes rising above the roofs, as if keeping a secret…’[39]<\/a> This was a way to emphasize the social idea between authoritarianism and democracy. E. Mili\u016bnas said: ‘If we go into intellectual depths, it is a contrast between the Western Christianity (the church) and democracy, like Pericles, Acropolis, Greece, which is asymmetric and free like Propileus, you pass through and continue to climb…’[40]<\/a> ‘I had been persuaded to make a centred stairway, but I thought that people aren’t gods, they can climb side stairs as well.’[41]<\/a> The Human<\/em> statue by Petras Maz\u016bras is an important element of the spatial narrative. Seeing it from the Freedom Avenue in the background of a plain wall, you cannot grasp the exact proportions of the figure, being able to see the actual scale of the sculpture only approaching and ascending the stairs to the main entrance. The statue has no pedestal, standing at the same level as the visitor, which makes the audience compare their body size with that of the statue. The closer you are to the main entrance (and the higher you ascend from the level of the square), the more pronounced is the difference between the size of the Human<\/em> figure an actual human being (Fig. 3).<\/p>\n Further on, the architecture of the building can be assessed according to the categories of artistic signifiers, described by R. Duroy and G. Kerner. In terms of syntactics, the building’s expression features an opposition of abstract architectural forms, which have no references to human scale (windows or doors), and the direct quote of the human forms \u2013 the Human<\/em> statue. In terms of sigmatics, the expression of the building is indexical, rather than iconic. The authors did not attempt to copy the antique order elements, but created easily-recognisable references to the antique style \u2013 a double portico, supported by two columns \u2013 stating that ‘the pediment and the supporting columns are first of all regarded as one of the most complete architectural principles, which, in our opinion, could be nearly perfect for expressing the solemnity of the protection of art and the process of exhibiting. … We used a thesis of Louis Henry Sullivan, a famous American architect and one of the pioneers of contemporary architecture: ‘Three basic shapes \u2013 a column, a transom and an arch \u2013 make three letters that build the art of architecture’[42]<\/a>. The decorative materials \u2013 dolomite, labradorite, green and grey granite plaster, copper coating and blue artificial marble, which are typical of non-monumental architecture and reminiscent of classic architecture \u2013 selected by the authors could be interpreted as a symbolic (gestalt) sign. Elements that convey the implications are abstracted to basic shapes \u2013 smooth closed fa\u00e7ades and ‘naked’ figure without detail. The only iconic element of the building is the Human<\/em> statue, which imitates the ancient style in content, shape and scale. In terms of content, the Human<\/em> is nearly a literal representation of the Vitruvian Man<\/em>. The shape and scale of the statue \u2013 colossal classical nudity \u2013 echoes of the ancient tradition. During the classical Greek period colossi used to be built only near temples (the tradition changed in Hellenistic times), while the designers of the building in question introduced the gallery namely as a ‘modern temple’[43]<\/a>. The architects avoided using imperative artistic signs \u2013 the audience is not forced to realize the ideas of elevation, humanism and democracy, conveyed by the building’s expression, i.e. like the nearby Garrison Church does convey the idea of authoritarian government. The artistic signs of the building are both indicative and suggestive. The indicative references to the ancient culture may be noticed by the intellectual society, while the open eroticism of the statue is suggestive. Since its creation to our day the art of sculpture has been used as the ‘poster face’ for various public of artistic events, often becoming an object of both open parodies and mass criticism[44]<\/a>. The provocative form of the sculpture fits the daring architecture of the building, which creates a contrast in terms of space, time and social-cultural perspective. What is interesting is that the public restroom, established in the gallery, is designed at the level of the square, while the halls of the gallery are high above the ground, thus creating a semantic narrative \u2013 a suggestive artistic implication of the human nature. The human nature is related both to secularity and corporeality, and the elevated spirit and intellect. The colossal Human<\/em> figure serves a semantic reference, stating that the idea of humanism is much greater than the human body. This semantic artistic implication serves as the gallery’s artistic content, which is conveyed by an individual form, designed by the architects and telling the unique spatial narrative of architecture.<\/p>\n Conclusions<\/strong><\/p>\n The relation of artistic suggestion and uniqueness of architecture is complex, since these two categories are not the same. Uniqueness is a necessary condition of architecture as art, since we usually do not perceive typical or repetitive objects as very valuable from artistic point of view. However, at the same time a very unique building should not necessarily be regarded as an architectural piece of art. For this reason the relation of these two categories must be explained on a more complex level. Aesthetics theory states that individual components are represented by the form of the piece of art, while the other \u2013 the content of art, attributed to the universal foundation[45]<\/a>. This approach is useful for evaluating gallery art (especially visual arts), which often represents archetypical narratives, conveying them in an original form. In attempts to use this theory on architecture, it is necessary to think, what architectural aspects are regarded as artistic ‘content’ and ‘form’, since, if we regard architecture as art, it is only logic that the laws of artistic creation, identified in aesthetics theory, apply to architecture as well. Assuming that the objective categories of architecture’s artistic content can be attributed with architecture’s relation to location, time and social cultural context, the remaining categories of the theoretical model \u2013 architecture’s cognitive element and emotional element \u2013 are attributable to the category of architecture’s uniqueness. Thus, architectural contextuality, mentioned before, should be regarded as its artistic content, expressed in a unique form. This assumption is based on the idea that we perceive architecture as artistic as long as we can compare it to the architecture, created before (social cultural context), understand if its artistic time is contemporary, retrospective or ultramodern (context of time) and how it reflects the surrounding buildings (context of location). The artistic content is always universal and can be evaluated in comparatively objective categories \u2013 if you see a completely unique object, which cannot be compared to earlier architecture or the surrounding context, you would simply be unable to identify it as architecture[46]<\/a>. Meanwhile a form of art is subject to a demand for innovation \u2013 a recognizable piece must be represented in other, different ways of expression. In its form, architecture must breed new emotions and spatial experiences. An architectural research model, based on such interpretation of artistic content and form, can be successfully used to analyse specific examples.<\/p>\n Endnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Parts V and VI of the Description are available on the internet: http:\/\/www.am.lt\/VI\/article.php3?article_id=5553<\/a> .<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Art. 1, pt. 1, access on the internet: https:\/\/www.e-tar.lt\/portal\/lt\/legalAct\/ea80d52054f211e7846ef01bfffb9b64<\/a> .<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> The concept of ‘creative imagination’ has been taken from: Edgaras Klivis, Estetika ir meno filosofija <\/em>(Kaunas: Vytauto Did\u017eiojo universiteto leidykla, 2009), p. 25\u201326.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a>\u00a0 Algimantas Ma\u010diulis, Architekt\u016bra: stiliai, kompozicija, men\u0173 s\u0105veika<\/em> (Vilnius: Vilniaus dail\u0117s akademijos ledykla, 1997).<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Ibid; also: Edmundas Stasiulis, Forma architekt\u016broje<\/em> (Vilnius: Vilniaus dail\u0117s akademijos leidykla, 2010).<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Juozas Palaima, Harmonija architekt\u016broje: proporcijos ir mastelis<\/em> (Vilnius: Vilniaus dail\u0117s akademijos leidykla, 2006).<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Architekt\u016bros kompozicijos tyrimai: mokslini\u0173 straipsni\u0173 rinkinys<\/em>, red. R. Buivydas, J. Jurevi\u010dien\u0117, L. Ziberkas (Vilnius: Technika, 2003).<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Algimantas Ma\u010diulis, op. cit., p. 140,<\/p>\n [9]<\/a>\u00a0 Such presumption is featured in the works of Lukas Rekevi\u010dius. The author states that (any?) architecture carries cultural value, because it reflects the cultural environment of its creation, and also that the criterion of good architecture is actually the stimulation of the sensations of different social groups \u2013 the public, engineers, aesthetes, theorists, planners, tourists, cultural researchers and investors. See Lukas Rekevi\u010dius, ‘Miesto tapatyb\u0117s \u017eenkl\u0173 sistema, arba miesto poezija neliterat\u016bri\u0161kai’, in: Bernardinai.lt<\/em> [interactive], 01\/10\/2012, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], http:\/\/www.bernardinai.lt\/straipsnis\/2012-10-01-miesto-tapatybes-zenklu-sistema-arba-miesto-poezija-neliteraturiskai\/88715b<\/a>; Lukas Rekevi\u010dius, ‘Problemas sprend\u017eianti architekt\u016bra’, in: collection of presentations of the conference Architekt\u016bros kokyb\u0117s kriterijai ir j\u0173 teisin\u0117 reik\u0161m\u0117<\/em>, 2014, p. 25\u201326.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a>\u00a0 \u017dibartas Jack\u016bnas. Estetika ir prasm\u0117 (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedij\u0173 leidykla, 2011), p. 17\u201318.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> The idea is conveyed in the critical article of Brianna Rennix and Nathan J. Robinson ‘Why You Hate Contemporary Architecture… And If Not, Why You Should…’, translated into Lithuanian language by Gytis Or\u017eikauskas, in: Statyba ir architekt\u016bra, [interactive], 17\/01\/2018, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/sa.lt\/kodel-tu-nekenti-siuolaikines-architekturos\/<\/a> .<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Algimantas Ma\u010diulis, \u0160iuolaikin\u0117s Lietuvos architekt\u016bros menin\u0117s rai\u0161kos tendencijos<\/em>, doctoral dissertation (Vilnius, Technika, 2013), p. viii.<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Rimantas Buivydas, ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: regionalizmas’, in: Archiforma, 1999\/3, p. 70\u201377.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> Rimantas Buivydas, ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: istorizmas’, in: Archiforma<\/em>, 1999\/1, p. 69\u201374.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> Rimantas Buivydas, ‘XX a. architekt\u016bra: iracionalizmas’, in: Archiforma<\/em>, 1999\/2, p. 71-77.<\/p>\n [16]<\/a>\u00a0 Aist\u0117 Andriu\u0161yt\u0117, ‘Savitumas kaip vertyb\u0117 architekt\u016broje’, in: Urbanistika ir architekt\u016bra<\/em> 31(1), 2007, p. 62\u201366.<\/p>\n [17]<\/a> Sigfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: The Growth of a New Tradition<\/em> (Cambridge (MA): Harward University Press, 1967), p. 487.<\/p>\n [18]<\/a> Streamline Moderne<\/em> \u2012 an architectural trend in 1930s, featuring industrial design elements (ships, trains, planes) in architecture. These include smooth surfaces, rounded corners, emphasized windows, see Encyclopedia of 20th<\/sup> Century Architecture, Volume 1 A-F<\/em>, ed. R. Stephen Sennot (New York, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2004), p. 69. Also: Frank E. Wrenck, The Streamline Era Greyhound Terminals: The Architecture of W. S. Arrasmith<\/em> (Jefferson (NC), London: McFarland & Company, 2007), p. 111.<\/p>\n [19]<\/a> See Kauno architekt\u016bra<\/em>, ed. Alg\u0117 Jankevi\u010dien\u0117 (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991), p. 45; Jolita Kan\u010dien\u0117, Lietuvos architekt\u0173 orientyrai tarpukaryje, in: Archiforma<\/em> 1996\/1, p. 58; Jonas Minkevi\u010dius, ‘Valstyb\u0117s politikos atspindys Lietuvos architekt\u016broje 1918\u20131940 m.’, in: Archiforma<\/em>, 2001\/1, p. 89; Lietuvos moderno pastatai<\/em>, ed. Morta Bau\u017eien\u0117 (Vilnius: Savastis, 1998), introduction, pages unnumbered; Kaunas 1918<\/em>\u20132015<\/em>, ed. Julija R\u0117klait\u0117 (Vilnius: Lapas, 2015), p. 18.<\/p>\n [20]<\/a>\u00a0 Hans-Georg Gadamer, ‘Artworks in Word and Image: \u2018So True, So Full of Being!\u2019 (Goethe) (1992)\u201d, Theory, Culture & Society,<\/em> Vol. 23(1), 2006, p. 79\u201380.<\/p>\n [21]<\/a>\u00a0 \u017dibartas Jack\u016bnas, Estetika ir prasm\u0117<\/em> (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedij\u0173 leidykla, 2011), p. 18.<\/p>\n [22]<\/a>\u00a0 Christian Norberg-Schulz, Intentions in Architecture<\/em> (Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press, 1965), p. 187\u2013188.<\/p>\n [23]<\/a>\u00a0 Jan Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd, ‘On the problem of functions in architecture’, in: Structure, Sign and Function: Selected Writings of Jan Mukarovsky<\/em>, ed. J. Burbank and Steiner (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), p. 241\u2013244.<\/p>\n [24]<\/a>\u00a0 Donald Preziosi, Architecture, Language and Meaning: Approaches to Semiotics<\/em> (Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers, 1979), p. 52\u201355.<\/p>\n [25]<\/a>\u00a0 Charles Jencks, The Language of Postmodern Architecture<\/em> (London: Academy Editions, 1991), p. 49.<\/p>\n [26]<\/a>\u00a0 Ibid, p. 45\u201346, 49.<\/p>\n [27]<\/a>\u00a0 For this reason the ‘symbols’ identified by the authors could be regarded as gestalts.<\/p>\n [28]<\/a>\u00a0 Rolf Duroy, G\u00fcnter Kerner, ‘Menas kaip \u017eenklas: semiotinis-sigmatinis metodas’, in: Meno istorijos \u012fvadas<\/em>, ed. Hans Belting, Heinrich Dilly, Wolfgang Kemp, Willibald Saul\u00e4nder, Martin Warnke (Vilnius, Alma littera, 2002), p. 260\u2013281.<\/p>\n [29]<\/a> Phatic (territorial) function according to D. Preziosi.<\/p>\n [30]<\/a> Historical function according to J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd, metacode according to D. Preziosi and connotations, defined by Ch. Jencks.<\/p>\n [31]<\/a> Social function according to J. Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd, aesthetic function according to D. Preziosi.<\/p>\n [32]<\/a> Sophia Psarra, Architecture and Narrative: The Formation of Space and Cultural Meaning <\/em>(printed in USA and Canada: Routledge, 2009).<\/p>\n [33]<\/a> Flora Samuel, Le Corbusier and the Architectural Promenade<\/em> (Basel: Birkh\u00e4user, 2010).<\/p>\n [34]<\/a> Kaunas 1918<\/em>\u20132015<\/em>, ed. Julija R\u0117klait\u0117 (Vilnius: Lapas, 2015), p. 19, 200.<\/p>\n [35]<\/a> Algimantas Alekna, ‘Vardai nauji, o id\u0117jos…’, in: Statyba ir architekt\u016bra<\/em> 11 (318), 1985, p. 13\u201314.<\/p>\n [36]<\/a> D. Ruseckas, R. Steponaitis, ‘Kauno paveiksl\u0173 galerija’, Statyba ir architekt\u016bra 5 (276), 1982, p. 10.<\/p>\n [37]<\/a> G. Gr\u0117blikait\u0117, ‘Gimusi jaunyst\u0117s vaizduot\u0117j’, in: Statyba ir architekt\u016bra<\/em>, 4 (348), 1988, p. 21.<\/p>\n [38]<\/a> Which is discussed in the article ‘M\u0117lynosios architekt\u016bros beie\u0161kant’ by Vytautas Petru\u0161onis, in: Statyba ir architekt\u016bra<\/em> 5 (337), 1987, p. 20-21.<\/p>\n [39]<\/a> D. Ruseckas, R. Steponaitis, ‘Kauno paveiksl\u0173 galerija’, in: Statyba ir architekt\u016bra<\/em> 5 (276), 1982, p. 10.<\/p>\n [40]<\/a> Tomas Grunskis, Julija R\u0117klait\u0117, Laisv\u0117s architekt\u016bra<\/em> (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2012), p. 183.<\/p>\n [41]<\/a> G. Gr\u0117blikait\u0117, op. cit., p. 20.<\/p>\n [42]<\/a> D. Ruseckas, R. Steponaitis, op. cit., p. 11.<\/p>\n [43]<\/a> G. Gr\u0117blikait\u0117, op. cit., p. 21.<\/p>\n [44]<\/a> Art installation mis(a)apropriacija<\/em>, see [interactive], 2005, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/coolturistes.weebly.com\/missappropriation-2005.html<\/a> ; edible Human<\/em> installation, artist Jolita Vaitkut\u0117, see Jurgita Liepon\u0117, ‘Meninink\u0117 J. Vaitkut\u0117 garsi\u0105j\u0105 vyro skulpt\u016br\u0105 Kaune pavers valgoma instaliacija’, in: 15 min<\/em>, [interactive], 09\/07\/2018, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/www.15min.lt\/naujiena\/aktualu\/lietuva\/15min-artejanciu-svenciu-proga-nuogo-vyro-skulpturai-padovanojo-drabuzius-56-75637<\/a> ; ’15 min art\u0117jan\u010di\u0173 \u0161ven\u010di\u0173 proga nuogo vyro skulpt\u016brai padovanojo drabu\u017eius’, in: 15 min<\/em> [interactive], 14\/12\/2009, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/www.15min.lt\/naujiena\/aktualu\/lietuva\/15min-artejanciu-svenciu-proga-nuogo-vyro-skulpturai-padovanojo-drabuzius-56-75637<\/a> ; ‘\u0160alia garsiausio Kauno nuogaliaus nusifotografavo nuogas’, in: Kas vyksta Kaune<\/em>, [interactive], 18\/02\/2015, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/kaunas.kasvyksta.lt\/2015\/02\/18\/zmones\/salia-garsiausio-kauno-nuogaliaus-nusifotogravo-nuogas\/<\/a> ; J\u016brat\u0117 \u0160e\u0161kevi\u010di\u016bt\u0117, ‘\u017dymiausias Kauno \u201enuogalius\u201c \u2013 P. Maz\u016bro skulpt\u016bra \u201e\u017dmogus’, in: 15 min<\/em>, [interactive], 11\/07\/2010, [seen on 25\/10\/2018], https:\/\/www.15min.lt\/naujiena\/aktualu\/lietuva\/zymiausias-kauno-nuogalius-p-mazuro-skulptura-zmogus-56-106906<\/a> .<\/p>\n<\/a>\u00a0Fig. 1. Diagrams of the theories of the purpose of architecture by Jan Muka\u0159ovsk\u00fd, Christian Norberg-Schultz and Donald Preziosi<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0Fig. 2 The theoretical model for the research of architectural artistic suggestion and individuality, compiled by the author of the article<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>Fig. 3 Spatial narrative of Kaunas Mykolas \u017dilinskas Picture Gallery<\/em><\/p>\n